ADHUNIK PACKAGERS PVT. LTD.,PARWANOO vs. ITO (TDS), SOLAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1418/CHANDI/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 April 2019AY 2015-161 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A and the levy of fee under Section 234E were effective from 1.6.2015. Since the returns were filed and TDS was deposited prior to this date, the mistake was apparent from the record and rectifiable under Section 154.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed TDS returns before the amendment to Section 200A of the Act and before the effective date of levying fee under Section 234E. The Assessing Officer rectified the assessment under Section 154. The assessee contended that the amendment was not applicable.

What were the issues?

Whether the amendment to Section 200A and the levy of fee under Section 234E are applicable to TDS returns filed before the effective date. Whether such a situation constitutes a mistake apparent from the record rectifiable under Section 154.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 200A,Section 234E,Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

11.

We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have carefully

perused the material available on record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that

the amendment took place in the provisions of section 200A of the Act and the fee

chargeable u/s 234E for late filing of returns of the TDS statement was to be levied w.e.f.

1.6.2015.

12.

On a similar issue the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs.

Steel Strips Ltd (supra) held as under;-

“It is clear from the order of the Assessing Officer that depreciation was allowed overlooking Section 80VVA of the Act. Overlooking of a statutory provision is clearly a mistake apparent on record and on that basis, rectification under Section 154 of the Act was clearly admissible. Impermissibility of deduction is not debatable if Section 80VVA is applied. This being so, the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal erred in law in holding that rectification was beyond the scope of Section 154 of the Act. It is clear that the statutory provision having come into force w.e.f. 1.4.1984, the same could have been applied for the assessment year 1984-85 and thereafter.”

13.

In the present case also, the amendment took place w.e.f. 1.6.2015 while the

returns were filed by the assessee prior to that amendment and the TDS was deposited

much before the said date i.e. 1.6.2015. Therefore, the mistake was apparent from the

record and required to be rectified u/s 154 of the Act. .

14.

Now this issue has been settled by the various Benches of the ITAT and the latest

decision is of this Bench of the ITAT, having the similar combination in the case of Sh.

Jasbir Singh Anand, Chandigarh Vs. ACIT, Ghaziabad in ITA Nos. 183 to

185/Chd./2018 for the assessment years2014-15 and 2015-16 wherein vide order dated

8.3.2019, it has been held as under:-

“10. We have considered the rival submissions and carefully gone through the material available on record. It is noticed that an identical issue having similar facts has been adjudicated by various Benches of the ITAT. 11. On a similar issue the ITAT Delhi Bench ‘E’ in the case of GNA Udyog Ltd. Vs. Asst. CIT, CPC, TDS Ghaziabad(supra) has held as under:

More judgments on Section 200A

All 4,379 judgments and leading authorities on Section 200A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →